The main problem is, that BigTech abuses the inner fire of Open Source developers. They monetize it, but don't send money to the makers... They send the money to their shareholders.
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
316 points (95.1% liked)
Linux
59667 readers
704 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I can think of nothing worse than having your pet project adopted by BigTech and being expected to fix bugs free of charge. I'm not even sure what the solution to that would be other than walking away from it. Thankfully, my biggest project (DF-SHOW) is niche enough to be just a personal project, but a common enough concept (a TUI file manager) that there are plenty of other, more well established, solutions available.
I wrote it for myself, but figured others can benefit from it.
FOSS works on the premise of an angry engineer, that someone finally got pissed off about a problem enough to write a solution.
This so tracks.
All we need is for the communist government to say we like what you're trying to do. Here's an allowance for expenses!
The motivational component hits first. Developers lose the ability to push through tasks.
Eh… they lose the motivation to fix issues for free that don’t affect them. Crazy, I know.
She reviewed academic literature, analyzed 57 community materials, and talked to seven OSS developers directly.
7 developers = entire open source community
We need a website to highlight what projects need funding and how much. Potemtially partner up with open source social media too so projects can display how much they need for the year
That article reads like it was written by AI. Feels like a ChatGPT bullet list just with the emojis deleted. They also didn't really say much specific about the FOSS dev burnout, just generic explanation about what burnout is. The article cites a study but then instead of talking about things from it, it just says generic slop about how a burned out FOSS dev could feel.
Edit: I feel like my comment contradicts itself but it's hard to put into words exactly what's wrong with the article but it just reads so poorly.
It’s definitely click fodder like 99.99999% of today’s content. That’s where we’re at because many years ago we let the pigs into the palace.
I do not really see that.
The article is short, and myself I like to write longer, more detailed texts. But few people nowadays have the patience to read ten, five, or three pages of text.
Also, I am becoming wary about the trolling / disinformation tactic to qualify something as AI that you do not like. If a piece of text is wrong, it will have logic failures that you can address and point to.
And said that, burn-out is a real problem, I can confirm that. Not only in FOSS software but in other fields of software development, too - but the article also cites real factors which make it worse for open source development. And it is not only a threath for the mental health of individuals, but also for the community.
And the aspect of entitlement of some users is true, too.
I was commenting about the way its written. I know burnout is real
even in FOSS we've had the xz backdoor basically caused by overworked maintainer. I was just expecting something less generic. The whole article could have been the first paragraph. The rest was just generic (maybe AI generated) slop without citations (There is your logic error I guess?). I would instead expect the article to refer to the study or refer to other articles or something.
I agree, the article is in the uncanny valley where it just feels off. If it weren’t for AI slop, I would call it clickbait.
Dark humor becomes a coping mechanism. "Fix it, fork it, f*ck off" becomes the phrase of choice.
oooo, I like that.
Time for OnlyFloss
The FOSS vtuber community is not far from that
The open source developers should unionize against the large corporations not paying them. A virtual picket line, and collective bargaining
Related blog post I saw posted yesterday goes into a lot of depth on exactly what you’re talking about.
It does not. It pledges source-available software as a better alternative to FOSS. So it by definition is not about FOSS devs. (I've only read part of the article because I oppose the opinions they share, so maybe it talks about FOSS devs in the part I have not read.)
I noticed them talking about one of their softwares being licensed under FSL, not having heard of it, I looked it up and...
They kinda lost me at
What about AGPLv3 though? AGPLv3 is not permissive enough.
However, in the original article, this section definitely had me thinking. I thoroughly agree with the author's stance on this, and I wonder if their alternatives will actually solve the problem.
As the former VP of Community at Discourse (GPLv2) I spent half a decade participating in the making of certifiably Free, Open Source Software that got put to use by literal nazis to amplify their organized hate, and all we had to say for ourselves was "well, the license says free for everyone".
It makes me think of """Truth"" Social" using Mastodon code, and illegally at that. I guess... at a certain point if a bad actor is gonna be bad... Will a license stop them? I'm unconvinced that AGPL isn't enough, but I could still be won over.
So long as my freedoms as a regular individual are maintained with the software that I use and love (my primary concern is some megacorp enshittifier being able to just take the stuff I use on the daily) then I'm open to new licensing schemes. I could be won over.
I'm not very educated on the Fair Source stuff but the idea is that you create source available software which will after some time become Open Source. So I guess their idea is that if you use AGPL, people cannot do that. AGPL means nobody else can make Fair Source software from your work. AGPL is a good license, it just does not work with their
[new software] -> [source available] -> [FOSS after a while] -> [new software made from the now FOSS software]
loop.
Lots of open source developers are working for those same companies and getting paid to work on open source code.
This is purely subjective and depends on whom you're talking to. While I've had series of burn out stages with free software development and maintenance, I only distanced myself from writing code but not the community altogether. I also only work for orgs that are run by volunteers not by companies so theres that. If you work on projects that are led by a company, you'll always feel like you're being used because there's no sense of belonging.
Are you sure? Because based on the internet armchair developers I see around, open source developers are an inexhaustible source of unending miracles that work for free and are fueled by incoherent, conflicting, entitled demands from 14 year olds.
open source developers are an inexhaustible source of unending miracles that work for free and are fueled by incoherent, conflicting, entitled demands from 14 year olds.
Ah, I see you're a Bazzite user
e: (No offense to the Bazzite user, I'm sure you're a special little guy and not at all a problem.)
Is there a good resource for determining how "effective" your donation to any given open source org is? As in how much of it is going to be paid to the actual devs, QA, and other related workers vs higher management?
IIRC that's a major complaint with Mozilla and a lot of other large open source orgs.
Being in both sides of the coin, like every volunteer I can tell often that is really tough.
Sometimes a nice email or a post boost will heal moral for a while.
Sometimes a 1€ donation will help a bit for this month hosting fees.
At least that’s what I am trying to do, probably not regularly enough.
I respect how OpenBSD seems to work. Like "we do this for ourselves, but if you want to use our software, go ahead, we don't mind (or care)".
Morale. Just fyi sincerely not being snooty :-)
Really good points there.
After seeing one of my team burnout (and I'm feeling it too), the indicators mentioned are real.
Treat them well (and pay them, regularly).
That's because FOSS is not paid. Imagine all distros minimum price of 1$
If that were the case I'd have spent thousands on Linux by now T.T
Lots of FOSS developers are paid by companies.
I feel like there is scope for a Patreon type thing that allows you to donate a fixed amount but choose the projects it goes to so it gets split between them. So I can donate €20/month and choose projects A, B, C and G so they all get €5 each
Liberapay is similar to this, and very well established. Highly recommend checking it out!
Great! Thought it’d be wild that no one else thought of this
i've used liberapay to support lemmy and now that i know it can do this, i'm going to see if it can do the other project work i also use heavily; thanks for making me aware.
I understand that you want money, but if I created FOSS applications, I would do it for fun.
So do they. But then the tiny tool they built for fun Kris expanding as they add features until is useful, then really useful. And some eventually become a small, ignored, absolutely critical components in software used by millions. Too small or unsexy to stay any money, but user errors or scammers or AI slop or bugs or feature request lead to enormous volumes of email, comments, forum posts, vitriol, pressure, stress, angst, burnout, depression.
FLOSS is dumb because it's too good for us. I haven't paid for software in ten years. And I could use this great stuff to build bad stuff.
That's why I refuse to use Linux. It enables a front end of tech stacks for morons to profit from, and sell ideas like state surveillance, AI worker displacement, and other boogey monster tech to audiences gooning for tech to profit from, instead of honoring the purity of open source and what it enables creative young folk to do with it.
FLOSS didn't radicalize me to create, it radicalized me about worker rights.